civilleader
Prince
Okay I think it is either Rome India or China. They each had a legacy. Rome just took greek legacy and added to it so that's why Greece ain't on my list.
What nation shaped the world the most?
- Thread starter civilleader
- Start date
civilleader
Prince
Okay I had to combine options since I could make only 20 choices. Sorry, I know Spain, portugal, Italy, etc. should be their own but don't have space.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
The British
Ad Hominem
Warlord
The western world: Greece and Rome.
The whole world: the Brits
Spain had an extremely large influence duo to it's success as a colonial power.
The whole world: the Brits
Spain had an extremely large influence duo to it's success as a colonial power.
Rome, and greece- british are overruled as they are a western nation, and therfore directlly influenced by rome- and thus wer eonly peddiling out a form of old Roman culture
as a side note the ancient ROman state is NOT, and NEVER will, under ANY circustances be equated with the moder, industrial, or medieval itallian states- not in legal succession, and cultural succession is even "iffy"- the two are indipendent entities
as a side note the ancient ROman state is NOT, and NEVER will, under ANY circustances be equated with the moder, industrial, or medieval itallian states- not in legal succession, and cultural succession is even "iffy"- the two are indipendent entities
Zardnaar
Deity
England
ShiplordAtvar
Texan by the grace of God
Definitely classical Greece. Without them, what would the Romans have coopted later on? The whole concept of a Western civilization is due to them.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
Rome did europe, britain did: Africa, India, Australia, parts of China, SE Asia, Middle East, Canada, Carribean isles... The list is endless.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Shaped the world? Depend which part of the world you mean. Britain, for all that it conquered territories in the far east, did not have that much impact there outside Australia and NZ, and perhaps India.
However I think even Rome or britain have very unequal shaping scores. If you count largest amount of land heavily influenced, britain is probably a top contender. But if you consider population, considering the massive population of the Asian world where England didn't do much shaping of the world - they just occupied it for a while - then China is a major contender as well.
Personally I think no nation can claim to have truly shaped THE World even in slight amounts. They can claim to have shaped *a* world, but there are more than one world on this planet - I see this planet divided in about four great worlds, with many minor "side tribes".
1)The Western World. Rome being the obvious primary influence. It's possible to divide this further in a Latin world (Spain, Med Europe and ex-colonies) and a Germanic world (North Europe, England and ex-full colonies*) - the differences between the two are in great part readily noticeable.
*IE, Australia, NZ, US, Canada as opposed to India, SE Asia et al - colonies SETTLED by them as opposed to colonies where they just took over the administration.
2)The Islamic World. The primarily influence there, well, you have one guess as to which it could possibly be. It starts with "Arabia" and ends the same.
3)The Eastern World. China being the definite great influence there, and India the other major player. If I were to draw east-west parallels I would compare India to Egypt/Persia/Fertile Crescent and China to the Greco-Roman powers.
When you get right down to it, England, despite its great impact on the Western World (or Rome, for that matter), didn't have all that much of a deep, lasting impact on the Eastern World - not really that much more than the Eastern World had on the west. Sure, industrialization had a great impact on the east - but then so did paper on the west. And China, for all the impact it had in the East, cannot claim to have impacted the western or islamic world any more deeply than the west impacted the east.
Perhaps if one day we have something that we can refer to as a "human world" with no such distinction then it will be possible to designate a nation as having a greater impact on the world than any before. I just don't see that as really possible at present - because you have to judge which part of the world is most important, and then to quantify the impact of each state on each nation (or should that be each individual?) - which gets ridiculous aplenty.
However I think even Rome or britain have very unequal shaping scores. If you count largest amount of land heavily influenced, britain is probably a top contender. But if you consider population, considering the massive population of the Asian world where England didn't do much shaping of the world - they just occupied it for a while - then China is a major contender as well.
Personally I think no nation can claim to have truly shaped THE World even in slight amounts. They can claim to have shaped *a* world, but there are more than one world on this planet - I see this planet divided in about four great worlds, with many minor "side tribes".
1)The Western World. Rome being the obvious primary influence. It's possible to divide this further in a Latin world (Spain, Med Europe and ex-colonies) and a Germanic world (North Europe, England and ex-full colonies*) - the differences between the two are in great part readily noticeable.
*IE, Australia, NZ, US, Canada as opposed to India, SE Asia et al - colonies SETTLED by them as opposed to colonies where they just took over the administration.
2)The Islamic World. The primarily influence there, well, you have one guess as to which it could possibly be. It starts with "Arabia" and ends the same.
3)The Eastern World. China being the definite great influence there, and India the other major player. If I were to draw east-west parallels I would compare India to Egypt/Persia/Fertile Crescent and China to the Greco-Roman powers.
When you get right down to it, England, despite its great impact on the Western World (or Rome, for that matter), didn't have all that much of a deep, lasting impact on the Eastern World - not really that much more than the Eastern World had on the west. Sure, industrialization had a great impact on the east - but then so did paper on the west. And China, for all the impact it had in the East, cannot claim to have impacted the western or islamic world any more deeply than the west impacted the east.
Perhaps if one day we have something that we can refer to as a "human world" with no such distinction then it will be possible to designate a nation as having a greater impact on the world than any before. I just don't see that as really possible at present - because you have to judge which part of the world is most important, and then to quantify the impact of each state on each nation (or should that be each individual?) - which gets ridiculous aplenty.
exavtley- Rome "did" Europe 9and influenced the middle east), and a european power- as directlly influenced by Rome, went on to influence other lands- its indirect influence in terms of politics, but overall, there is a direct connection- hence ROme, being the great base for the western colonial nations, is the most powerful force of influence the world has yet seen
The Person
Deity +2
I'd go for Britain, no matter what you say.
Margim
Footy's back.
Culturally, politcally, etc - Greece. Religiously, the near east. The Greeks incorporated the near east into their empire for a time, but ultimately found their successors adhering to a near-eastern religion. Therefore, its a tie.
yaroslav
Emperor
Why are Portugal and Spain bundled thogether? 
Anyway, I dare to say that this question is very difficult to answer and I'm far away from knowing the answer.
Anyway, I dare to say that this question is very difficult to answer and I'm far away from knowing the answer.
Ad Hominem
Warlord
I said Greece, Rome and Britain. All the popular choices. May I explain, to add to the ongoing debate:
The main foundation of the Western World (culturally, politically, scientifically, in the way of thinking etc. etc.) is the Greek philosophy, way of thinking and culture in general. I don't think there are many who doubt that.
But, the Greek influence reached what we call today "West", filtered through Rome, the dominant power for several centuries and the empire that shaped the ancient world by it's actions. The Roman paternalism, pragmatism and positive thinking, heavily influenced the Greek culture they adopted (Xen, the indigenous Latin culture is a tiny dwarf compared to the classical Greece and you know it) from the Greeks, and that is what "the West" got from the Romans.
The Brits, later, established the first global nation, spreading their language and the "western culture" (the one that was based on the legacy of Greece via Rome) to the whole world. Not to forget that the Colonial era that allowed to Europe to flurish (at the expense of the rest of the world) and to the "West" to become dominant, was by large a product of Britain (and secondary Spain).
So, without Rome the bulk of the products of the Greek thinking would've been lost or overlooked, and without Britain it wouldn't be the the dominant culture worldwide.
The main foundation of the Western World (culturally, politically, scientifically, in the way of thinking etc. etc.) is the Greek philosophy, way of thinking and culture in general. I don't think there are many who doubt that.
But, the Greek influence reached what we call today "West", filtered through Rome, the dominant power for several centuries and the empire that shaped the ancient world by it's actions. The Roman paternalism, pragmatism and positive thinking, heavily influenced the Greek culture they adopted (Xen, the indigenous Latin culture is a tiny dwarf compared to the classical Greece and you know it) from the Greeks, and that is what "the West" got from the Romans.
The Brits, later, established the first global nation, spreading their language and the "western culture" (the one that was based on the legacy of Greece via Rome) to the whole world. Not to forget that the Colonial era that allowed to Europe to flurish (at the expense of the rest of the world) and to the "West" to become dominant, was by large a product of Britain (and secondary Spain).
So, without Rome the bulk of the products of the Greek thinking would've been lost or overlooked, and without Britain it wouldn't be the the dominant culture worldwide.
Ribannah
Fighter Druid
If you take the question literally, there can be only one answer: the Dutch. They changed land into water, water into land, swamp into clay or sand and back again, beach into dune, deciduous woods into pinewoods and back, altered the course and shape of a great many rivers, etc. 
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Britian, because I'm not going to assume that the only or main reason the British turned out the way we did was because of Roman influence. On the other hand, the British did have a sizeable hand in creating and influencing some important modern day countries such as America, Australia and India. We also invented a hell of a lot of things, developed the protestant religion considerably (and spread it globally) and damnit, if we hadn't been so good at building empires, a damn sight more people would speak French today! 
I could think of others, but I'm loathe to join the badwaggon of assuming that just because they came first, that countries like Greece and Rome must have had greater influence. Talking also literally, in terms of Geography, some major areas (N. America, Middle east, India etc) owe a great deal of their current borders to the British influence on the world.
I could think of others, but I'm loathe to join the badwaggon of assuming that just because they came first, that countries like Greece and Rome must have had greater influence. Talking also literally, in terms of Geography, some major areas (N. America, Middle east, India etc) owe a great deal of their current borders to the British influence on the world.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
As far as the world the way it is today, Britain.
The Pre-Christian Romans had little effect on them - considering they didn't become a globally influential power until more than a millenia after the Romans left the Isles.
Had the formative years of Britain occurred during Roman rule, obviously the answer would be different. But they essentially had to rebuild from scratch. I would say the Normans had a much greater impact on Britain than the Romans did.
The Pre-Christian Romans had little effect on them - considering they didn't become a globally influential power until more than a millenia after the Romans left the Isles.
Had the formative years of Britain occurred during Roman rule, obviously the answer would be different. But they essentially had to rebuild from scratch. I would say the Normans had a much greater impact on Britain than the Romans did.
Similar threads
